4 ms·

I doubt it. Our modeling capabilities continue to develop much faster than our knowledge of how the brain works. Of course, neural network modeling can still b

I doubt it. Our modeling capabilities continue to develop much faster than our knowledge of how the brain works. Of course, neural network modeling can still be of great use. Since we've more or less figured out how the brain does a variety of low-level processing tasks (like coordinating muscle movements, finding the visual depth and texture of observed surfaces, etc.), this knowledge can serve as a starting point for developing exciting technologies at increasingly faster speeds (robotics limbs, computer-guided navigation, etc.). Also, advanced neural networks can serve as rudimentary "existence proofs" for theories of mind and consciousness. For example, a theory that claims that our incredible computing power stems from a recurrent network of thalamo-cortical neurons is strengthened by a computer simulation that exhibits similar large-scale behavior in similar time scales under suitable parameters. That last sentence is pretty qualified, for good reason. We shouldn't expect to write some code and discover a working brain, at least not until we figure out how it works to begin with.

greendestiny 19y ago
I think it's entirely possible we'll develop general AI without understanding consciousness or even some of the other functions of the brain.
- nsrivast 19y ago
  Why?
  - tim2 19y ago
    No no, the burden is on the person who claims something "impossible." You have no basis to claim that what he said is impossible.
    - greendestiny 19y ago
      He can ask why I think something without it being a logical fallacy.
  - greendestiny 19y ago
    Well I'm not saying I know for sure, just that in some senses we tend to view algorithms as living in an abstract world of mathematics, but the reality is that an actual computation is a physical occurrence in universe. So what we might end up with is an intelligent chunk of the universe being inside of a computer and not a human, and that might not tell us as much as we'd hoped because the intelligence is an emergent property of the computation and not a defined behavior of the algorithm.
  - Electro 19y ago
    Any simulation running neurone interactions has the ability to produce sentience without us knowing why or how it happened. However it would require a phenominal amount of processing power than the simulated 'brain' would have. Human neurones can have up to 10000 synapses connecting them together (on average 7000 per neurone), which each synaptic interaction is a multi-variable of chemical reactions, catalysts, reinforcers, inhibitors and stimulants. I think our aim should be to simulate the R-Complex part of the triune brain model. This is where our evolutionary intelligence came from and it is the best basis to start. Birds have managed high levels of intelligence without the neocortex present in mammals, so obviously there's more than one route to sentience. I believe brain density is the key to sentience. In a small animals, like birds, they lose heat quickly and efficiently, which means their 'processors' can pump out more heat without burning out. Where as a human brain would cook itself if it was 'overclocked' as we're at the upper limit of the communication-efficiency ratio, and Elephants are above that ratio but get away with large processing and data storage with a form of 'low-energy' brains. With the speed of electricity in synapses, a Crow might be able to achive 10 times as many messages in the time it takes one of our brains to make 1 message. Elephants might only make .5 messages a second per synapse. So a crow would benefit greatly by increasing brain density and be able to solve problems to the same degree as a human infant, however humans have phenominal storage in our brains and a crow simply doesn't have the brain mass to compete so we have more data to act on than a crow. Elephants use their brains to remember pretty much everything, they've even been seen taking short cuts that they have 'guessed' between paths they've taken before. I think the brain is astounding, but to reproduce sentience we should follow evolution; not only because it gives us vast insights into how our brains evolved, but also because it should avoid us ever getting into the irrational AI situation. If an AI is made from simulating a human brain then it is human, which it would be capable of understanding as it would have to be 'taught' and I know I'm human because of the society I know around me that teaches me that I think and act in a similar method as everyone else, just with different data. :Well, that should teach you for asking why.
    - michaelneale 19y ago
      The future will not be dull, we can at least be sure of that ;)
- michaelneale 19y ago
  The desire for general AI is far greater then the desire for understanding consciousness, so perhaps that will be what happens. There certainly seems to be a desire for some people to wake up these AI minds, and get them to help us out a bit ;)
hugh 19y ago
I agree. I suspect that scaling up a simulation of a neuron and expecting it to act like a brain is a bit like scaling up a simulation of an iron atom and expecting it to act like a car.

greendestiny 19y ago

I think it's entirely possible we'll develop general AI without understanding consciousness or even some of the other functions of the brain.

nsrivast 19y ago
Why?
- tim2 19y ago
  No no, the burden is on the person who claims something "impossible." You have no basis to claim that what he said is impossible.
  - greendestiny 19y ago
    He can ask why I think something without it being a logical fallacy.
- greendestiny 19y ago
  Well I'm not saying I know for sure, just that in some senses we tend to view algorithms as living in an abstract world of mathematics, but the reality is that an actual computation is a physical occurrence in universe. So what we might end up with is an intelligent chunk of the universe being inside of a computer and not a human, and that might not tell us as much as we'd hoped because the intelligence is an emergent property of the computation and not a defined behavior of the algorithm.
- Electro 19y ago
  Any simulation running neurone interactions has the ability to produce sentience without us knowing why or how it happened. However it would require a phenominal amount of processing power than the simulated 'brain' would have. Human neurones can have up to 10000 synapses connecting them together (on average 7000 per neurone), which each synaptic interaction is a multi-variable of chemical reactions, catalysts, reinforcers, inhibitors and stimulants. I think our aim should be to simulate the R-Complex part of the triune brain model. This is where our evolutionary intelligence came from and it is the best basis to start. Birds have managed high levels of intelligence without the neocortex present in mammals, so obviously there's more than one route to sentience. I believe brain density is the key to sentience. In a small animals, like birds, they lose heat quickly and efficiently, which means their 'processors' can pump out more heat without burning out. Where as a human brain would cook itself if it was 'overclocked' as we're at the upper limit of the communication-efficiency ratio, and Elephants are above that ratio but get away with large processing and data storage with a form of 'low-energy' brains. With the speed of electricity in synapses, a Crow might be able to achive 10 times as many messages in the time it takes one of our brains to make 1 message. Elephants might only make .5 messages a second per synapse. So a crow would benefit greatly by increasing brain density and be able to solve problems to the same degree as a human infant, however humans have phenominal storage in our brains and a crow simply doesn't have the brain mass to compete so we have more data to act on than a crow. Elephants use their brains to remember pretty much everything, they've even been seen taking short cuts that they have 'guessed' between paths they've taken before. I think the brain is astounding, but to reproduce sentience we should follow evolution; not only because it gives us vast insights into how our brains evolved, but also because it should avoid us ever getting into the irrational AI situation. If an AI is made from simulating a human brain then it is human, which it would be capable of understanding as it would have to be 'taught' and I know I'm human because of the society I know around me that teaches me that I think and act in a similar method as everyone else, just with different data. :Well, that should teach you for asking why.
  - michaelneale 19y ago
    The future will not be dull, we can at least be sure of that ;)
michaelneale 19y ago
The desire for general AI is far greater then the desire for understanding consciousness, so perhaps that will be what happens. There certainly seems to be a desire for some people to wake up these AI minds, and get them to help us out a bit ;)

hugh 19y ago

I agree. I suspect that scaling up a simulation of a neuron and expecting it to act like a brain is a bit like scaling up a simulation of an iron atom and expecting it to act like a car.